Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 315 posts

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#281

Post by ajross »

Veserv wrote: post #222
ajross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your contention is that having FSD the car makes accidents more likely because people will rely on it when they shouldn't be driving at all. So... does it? The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen, where there have been multiple "driver passed out and the car stopped on the road" incidents. Seems like the truth is the opposite, no? Tesla didn't invent…

There are no third party statistics since Tesla lawyers actively force NHTSA to redact information from any reports they do make. Even ignoring the fact that Tesla habitually lies and acts in bad faith to consumers and investors alike, the “statistics” their marketing department publishes are worthless. They present no analysis, methodology, or even data to support it. It is literally just a conclusion. The level of…

I'm genuinely curious what you're citing here? You're being really specific about this stuff but not actually linking to (or even mentioning) any sources. And as a Tesla owner who's been steeped in this complete shitfest of a debate here on HN for three years, I'd expect to have been exposed to some of that. Yet this is all new.

Come on, link your stuff. I mean, what's the source for telemetry detecting different fractions of fatal vs. non-fatal crashes? Are you sure that's not just confounded data (fatal crashes are more likely to involve damage to the computers and radio!) or outliers (there are very few fatal crashes known!)?

Basically, the red yarn on your bulletin board looks crazy thick to me. But I'd genuinely love a shot at debunking it.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#282

Post by regpertom »

I think I read a lot of these Tesla comments, I don’t know if it’s just people hating Musk but I scratch my head remember a Darwin Award (maybe honorary) from 2000’s of a caravan driver who crashed because they thought cruise control meant it would steer (or FSD in current terminology) and so was having a shower in the back or something.

Everywhere I go there’s some claim I’m not meant to take literally, but I feel only with Tesla things do I hear talk of ‘well if someone believed that at face value’. No where, anywhere, afaict, can I do that and things work out fine. No where at no time do I get to say, I don’t think, ‘I took a personal risk based on a title in your marketing material and ignored all the pop ups saying otherwise’.

For example, a real estate agent can sell you a house with the property boundaries incorrectly marked, pulled from official records, and well, sucks you be you. What do you mean you didn’t look over every bit of small print and made even the slightest assumption of fairness.

I guess it just falls down to whether or not you’re in with lawyers or have an axe to grind.

At this point I feel as though Musk and Trump should be appointed ceo of everything and then everything will be audited with a fine tooth comb. Put everything to the standard we put people we don’t like.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#283

Post by 1970-01-01 »

Veserv wrote: post #274
1970-01-01 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Third party reports show at least 20 people burned to death in their Tesla's in the US in 2022 [1] I started fact checking [1], and stopped when there was only 1 death in 2022: a cat. Many of "your" fires are indirectly related to Tesla (e.x. bad EVSE wiring job), so please link me to anything I may have missed and I'll continue.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. The page has clear links to news stories corroborating the deaths. Here are a few in 2022 with minimal paywalls: [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221111234459/https://www.cbsne... “A Tesla is believed to have burst into flames upon impact. One person, a passenger inside the Tesla, was pronounced dead at the scene by first responders.” [2] https://www.11alive.com/articl…

1 does NOT state the person "burned to death"

2 does NOT state the person "burned to death"

3 does NOT state the person "burned to death"

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#284

Post by tzs »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #134
trbleclef wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all feels very MCAS to me.

No? MCAS was necessary because Boeing made the plane aerodynamically unstable. They did so because of pressure to compete against superior Airbus offerings, and because a new airframe (the proper solution) would have been a huge undertaking and airlines wouldn't like it because they'd have to get pilots certified on the new airframe. Boeing then did not implement sufficient redundancy in the system, proper warning an…

> MCAS was necessary because Boeing made the plane aerodynamically unstable

It's not aerodynamically unstable. MCAS was required because in certain parts of the flight envelope outside of normal operation the pull-force feel of the control column was lighter than during normal operation. The FAA regulations require it to be heavier.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#285

Post by ajross »

ra7 wrote: post #280
ajross wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the burden of proof really on me? I mean, I look around and don't see any accidents. Seems safe. That's good enough. And it's good enough for most people. You're the one shouting like crazy on the internet about how everyone is wrong and making explicit general statements that the system is clearly unsafe . And that doesn't match my experience. And when asked for evidence of your own you admit it doesn't exist. So…

Precisely what I expected from you. You’re exactly Tesla’s target audience. The irony and projection in your comment is comical. “It’s safer than humans.” “Proof?” “Just look around, bro. Trust me, it’s good enough. No data needed.” Thankfully, some of us don’t lack critical thinking.

This seems out of hand. My perception is exactly the opposite: you're all over these threads claiming in decidedly certain terms that this system is unsafe. And all I'm saying is that it's clearly not, since at this scale we'd have if nothing else extensive anecdata showing AP/FSD accidents that simply don't seem to exist in the quantity needed to explain your certainty.

So, yeah. Occam tells me that these cars are safe. Which matches my 2.7 years of experience watching one of these things drive me around. So I'm comfortable with that, no matter how angry that makes you. I'm absolutely willing to change my mind with evidence, but not because you yelled at me on the internet.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#286

Post by ra7 »

ajross wrote: post #285
ra7 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely what I expected from you. You’re exactly Tesla’s target audience. The irony and projection in your comment is comical. “It’s safer than humans.” “Proof?” “Just look around, bro. Trust me, it’s good enough. No data needed.” Thankfully, some of us don’t lack critical thinking.

This seems out of hand. My perception is exactly the opposite: you're all over these threads claiming in decidedly certain terms that this system is unsafe. And all I'm saying is that it's clearly not, since at this scale we'd have if nothing else extensive anecdata showing AP/FSD accidents that simply don't seem to exist in the quantity needed to explain your certainty. So, yeah. Occam tells me that these cars are s…

I said they are not safer than humans like Tesla likes to claim. The methodology is extremely dubious and it’s very easy to debunk it for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics.

You claim it’s true because have anecdotes and personal experiences. You also say there are no crashes. But there are crashes. We just don’t know if FSD was engaged at the time because, again, Tesla doesn’t reveal it. Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones.

You are also conspicuously silent in this whole thread when data transparency comes up. Not once have you admitted Tesla should be more forthcoming about their crashes, and that in itself is very revealing.

You want to argue data or methodology? I’m here. But you’re being intellectually dishonest and resorting to repeating the same things over and over again. That ain’t gonna convince me.

And cut the shit about being angry or yelling at you. No one’s doing that. You’re clearly projecting.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#287

Post by Veserv »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #283
Veserv wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. The page has clear links to news stories corroborating the deaths. Here are a few in 2022 with minimal paywalls: [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221111234459/https://www.cbsne... “A Tesla is believed to have burst into flames upon impact. One person, a passenger inside the Tesla, was pronounced dead at the scene by first responders.” [2] https://www.11alive.com/articl…

1 does NOT state the person "burned to death" 2 does NOT state the person "burned to death" 3 does NOT state the person "burned to death"

So your complaint is what, terminology?

Tesla deliberately deceives the public by intentionally publishing bogus, misleading analysis about their fire rates that deliberately imply Teslas are reduced fire hazards when Teslas actually result in 3-5x as many fatalities in fires per capita and you complain about my terminology?

Fine, fire deaths. In 2022, 3-5x as many people died in Tesla fires than would be expected amongst average cars amounting to ~3.5-8 extra deaths per million vehicles resulting in ~14-16 additional deaths in the US above expectation. In contrast, the Ford Pinto had 27 additional deaths over 7 years and ~1.5 million vehicles resulting in ~4 excess deaths per year and ~2.5 extra deaths per million vehicle years.

So now it is your turn to explain why it is okay for Tesla to result in 16 extra people dying and imply that a vehicle 1.5-3x more prone to deadly fires than a Pinto is not a fire risk.

Note that quoting the culprit, Tesla, or any of the Tesla hustlers is not a very good argument since they have a direct financial incentive to lie, so please do try to refrain from regurgitating the Tesla marketing and present actual analysis from competent sources.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#288

Post by themaninthedark »

bluGill wrote: post #197
avgDev wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine debugging something like FSD might be difficult. Not sure what kind of data they store, but no situation might be the same.

Every try to debug a human? Worse, humans are not copies so making one better doesn't make it easy to upgrade the rest of us.

If the software was broken up in a sane manner and followed the "do one thing and do it well" philosophy, it would be easier to debug.

You don't debug humans, you train them.

Yes, the training is imperfect and doesn't always stick. Which is why we have yet another imperfect system of checking and certifying the training has been done before release. And then we have yet another system of bug catchers that patrol around making sure that the training is being adhered to. And then a system to revoke certification if we detect to many issues with the driver.

I would like to trust a self driving car, however it has also been programed by the very same humans that we don't want to trust. And I doubt that the review is nearly as robust as it should be.

Also the code is not open so I can't review it even if I wanted to because "trade secrets" which might just translate to "we are way to embarrassed to let others see this code because of how shitty it is".

Not being easy to upgrade might be a feature in this case; Right now I don't have to deal with a pushed update that makes all 2024 model Chevy SUV platform encounter a race condition that adversely affects lane keeping after being passed on the left side while in a turn on my morning commute.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#289

Post by Veserv »

ajross wrote: post #281
Veserv wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no third party statistics since Tesla lawyers actively force NHTSA to redact information from any reports they do make. Even ignoring the fact that Tesla habitually lies and acts in bad faith to consumers and investors alike, the “statistics” their marketing department publishes are worthless. They present no analysis, methodology, or even data to support it. It is literally just a conclusion. The level of…

I'm genuinely curious what you're citing here? You're being really specific about this stuff but not actually linking to (or even mentioning) any sources. And as a Tesla owner who's been steeped in this complete shitfest of a debate here on HN for three years, I'd expect to have been exposed to some of that. Yet this is all new. Come on, link your stuff. I mean, what's the source for telemetry detecting different fra…

Given that I said reports to NHTSA it should be obvious that I am talking about the NHTSA SGO database [1].

But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government.

As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but even forcing NHTSA to suppress unfavorable information.

As to “debunking” anything I am saying, whatever. It is not my job to thoroughly analyze Tesla systems from the outside to prove they are unnecessarily dangerous. It is Tesla’s burden to present robust data and analysis to third party auditors to demonstrate they are safe.

Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. It just means I, a random person on the internet, could not prove they were definitely unsafe. I probably also can not find the flaw in a random perpetual motion machine someone presents on the internet, but that does not make it work. Though if you are convinced by Tesla’s brand of bad faith safety analysis, then I have a perpetual motion machine powered on dreams to sell you since you can not prove it does not work.

[1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_In...

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#290

Post by judge2020 »

ra7 wrote: post #286
ajross wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems out of hand. My perception is exactly the opposite: you're all over these threads claiming in decidedly certain terms that this system is unsafe. And all I'm saying is that it's clearly not, since at this scale we'd have if nothing else extensive anecdata showing AP/FSD accidents that simply don't seem to exist in the quantity needed to explain your certainty. So, yeah. Occam tells me that these cars are s…

I said they are not safer than humans like Tesla likes to claim. The methodology is extremely dubious and it’s very easy to debunk it for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. You claim it’s true because have anecdotes and personal experiences. You also say there are no crashes. But there are crashes. We just don’t know if FSD was engaged at the time because, again, Tesla doesn’t reveal it. Go through the…

If you don't like Tesla's methodology, what data do you need to determine how much more unsafe Teslas are compared to humans? You sound like you have the data:

> Go through the NHTSA public database, there are dozens and dozens of Tesla ADAS crashes. Those are just the reported ones.

Why hasn't anyone else, or you, directly published conflicting data to show that it's less safe? "debunking" some statistics might be correct but it's not convincing, and definitely won't result in any action you might want to see from regulatory bodies.

Post reply on HN